James Bond is just a cash cow

The argument

James Bond is among the top-grossing movie franchises of all time. Worldwide, it has grossed over 7 billion dollars.Studios continue to produce new iterations of Bond because they know these films will be profitable, not because they love the character. One of the keys to James Bond's success is the fact that he is such a well known British icon. The first James Bond film premiered in 1962 while the next is slated to appear in late 2020. This makes it the longest-running movie franchise second only to Godzilla. Some have argued that its financial success lies in this longevity, as its longstanding popularity ensures financial reward. As a character, James Bond is constantly being reinvented. He has been played by actors including Daniel Craig, Pierce Brosnan, and Timothy Dalton. He is constantly reincarnated for a new generation in order to allow the franchise to continue. The constant actor switchover prevents any real identification with the character and means the character of James Bond remains hollow and lacking in a soul. To consider who Bond 'is' is meaningless as he is simply an empty husk, continually evoked in order to make people a lot of money. The character is lacking in depth and character development, enhanced by the constant rotating list of actors who play the character.

Context

James Bond, known as Agent 007, is a fictional spy character created by the British author Ian Fleming. He is a British icon, renowned for his escapades, peerless courage, and success with women. James Bond is also a movie franchise worth billions. Film companies know that they can rely on the fame of James Bond to lure in audiences, and so continue to produce films for financial gain.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Many of the recent Bond products, whether they be film or literary, have been critically acclaimed. The Telegraph even called Kingsley Amis' Bond book, published under a pseudonym, the best Bond story since Ian Fleming. The financial success of the James Bond films is in many ways unpredictable. A James Bond film does not ensure financial reward. The two highest grossing James Bond films, Skyfall and Thunderball, were produced nearly 50 years apart.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Commercial motive and artistic substance are not alternatives; almost every studio film is made to make money, so on this reasoning no character in a profitable franchise could be worth discussing. The counter also disputes the reliability the premise assumes, noting that individual entries have performed very unevenly. [Rejecting P2] Recasting is a fact about production rather than about the character, and the inference runs backwards: audiences argue about which actor's Bond is definitive precisely because they identify with the versions. The premise also contradicts itself, calling him a well-known British icon in one line and an empty husk in the next — an icon is something people identify with, which is what the position denies.